Does the FPM as a Party Want Peace with Israehell

Peace agreement with Israel?

  • I am an FPMer and I am undecided on peace agreement with Israel

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22
Rafidi

Rafidi

Legendary Member
I think this thread is necessary due to the views of many FPMers on this forum, and also, due to the fact that this forum, which at a time used to be officially an FPM platform, plays host to Zionist Hasbara trolls, who often times spread Zionist propaganda and anti Lebanese narratives, and they have been given space under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Therefore, I want FPMers to express themselves freely, especially that they can do so incognito. Does the FPM and do FPMers want peace agreement between Lebanon and Israehell?

If you support peace agreement with Israehell, why or why not?

Is there a consensus on this within the FPM as a party?

What is the official stance of the FPM and where does the MoU with Hezballah come into play?

Do you think Israehell will agree to anything not inclusive of Tawteen or naturalisation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon?

What of disputed borders, both sea and land and Israehell's drive to steal our oil and gas wealth in the sea by encroaching? How would that be solved?

What of remaining occupied lands like the Shebaa farms, the Kfar Shooba hills, Ghajar and the seven villages?

What of violations of our airspace and land?

What are the guarantees Israehell wont invade us in future?

You are replying to a lunatic who's shoving the concept of peace wi4h israhell and the struggle with Israehell into every topic and his dream of making peace with the occupation entity. To him, peace with Israehell is his ultimate dream and the solution to all our problems. Yet, we still see Jordan and Egypt stil begging for aid and having tough economic times, even though they sold out for nothing. This brings me to my point: does the FPM want peace with Israehell? Is that what you are looking for? Have you informed your ally, who's the number one rejected of Israehell? Are you calling for federalism on that basis? In other words, will federal states decide their own foreign policy outside the control of the central govt or the foreign ministry?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Advertisement
  • AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Ex-FPMer here, and I support a peace agreement with Israel, or a cessation of hostilities at the very least.

    As for FPM, their officials have expressed their views many times on this subject.
    They support Hizbullah in protecting Lebanon against "alleged" Israeli aggression.
    But but they don't share Hizbullah's jihadist aspiration to wipe Israel off the map.


    "Israel Has Right to Live in Security" Gibran Bassil
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    Not talking about FPM but more in general.

    I understand the current conflict but war is not what both sides are searching for. Both sides i assume want peace but each on their own conditions.

    War and death should never be your goal and peace talks are always welcome and should always be welcome. You describe peace as a crime when you should make it clear that peace with bad conditions is. (from your standpoint)
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Not talking about FPM but more in general.

    I understand the current conflict but war is not what both sides are searching for. Both sides i assume want peace but each on their own conditions.

    War and death should never be your goal and peace talks are always welcome and should always be welcome. You describe peace as a crime when you should make it clear that peace with bad conditions is. (from your standpoint)
    First of all, I do not think peace is a crime. What influences my decision on this question is my opposition to oppression, humiliation and injustice. Human values dictate my position on the Israhelli - Palestinian conflict in particular, and the Arab - Israhelli conflict generally. I completely disagree with any country, government, entity, or group that dehumanises people for whatsoever reasons. Such a country regime or entity should never be rewarded with recognition, diplomatic ties or any ties of normalcy and friendship.

    When it comes to peace agreement between Lebanon and Israehell, as you rightly pointed out, I am opposed to peace under bad conditions. That is just one side of it.

    On the other side of it, I oppose my country to presently have peace agreement in its entirety with Israhell because I would be endorsing genocide, apartheid, and injustice if I accept peace between Lebanon and Israehell before the Palestinian - Israehelli conflict is convincingly resolved. By this, I am not calling for the destruction of Jews, or precisely Israehellis. I am calling for a one state solution, which is democratic, free and just, where both Arabic and Hebrew speakers and Muslims, Jews and Christians and other believers and non-believers can live together freely as equal citizens. Until that is achieved, Israehell should be boycotted, sanctioned and isolated. The way the world boycotted apartheid South Africa and made that apartheid regime to fall, and that led to the people to unite as equal subjects of one state in South Africa, the world owes humanity the moral obligation to see the same thing happen in Palestine. That can be done peacefully, and by leaders who want peace and justice to prevail from both the Israehelli and Palestinian sides. The Zionist apartheid regime must fall in order to defend the Jew and Hebrew speaker before defending the Palestinian Muslim or Christian who speaks Arabic. Such a racist apartheid regime is a danger and a threat to the Jewish people before it is a threat to the Palestinians and to it's neighbors and a threat and danger to world peace and human values of tolerance, mutual respect between nations and peaceful coexistence. Therefore, I do not want to see a peace agreement between Lebanon and Israehell until Israehell amends it's ways, and itself as a matter of moral principles and on humanitarian grounds.

    As for relations between the two parties, I am not a proponent of war and destruction, and I only support our country's right to self defense, as the Israehellis also say by pretending that they only reserve the right to self defense. I dont mind a renewed truce or cessation of hostilities. But there should be no formal peace agreement and no exchange of diplomatic ties and open borders until there is no more an apartheid regime in Palestine and the current racist regime is replaced with a one state where all it's people live together as equal citizens with equal rights and no discrimination along religious or cultural lines. Never in history, ancient or recent, until Israehell was born and is trying to do that, has the land of Palestine being the exclusive possession of only one people or group of people.

    Whatever the case might be in the near future, Lebanon has it's demands. We do not want Tawteen or the naturalisation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. This is a point of consensus among Lebanese. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese oppose Tawteen of the Palestinians in Lebanon. Additionally, we want all our lands, airspace and waters to be free from occupation violations and threats of occupation.
     
    Last edited:
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    First of all, I do not think peace is a crime. What influences my decision on this question is my opposition to oppression, humiliation and injustice. Human values dictate my position on the Israhelli - Palestinian conflict in particular, and the Arab - Israhelli conflict generally. I completely disagree with any country, government, entity, or group that dehumanises people for whatsoever reasons. Such a country regime or entity should never be rewarded with recognition, diplomatic ties or any ties of normalcy and friendship.

    When it comes to peace agreement between Lebanon and Israehell, as you rightly pointed out, I am opposed to peace under bad conditions. That is just one side of it.

    On the other side of it, I oppose my country to presently have peace agreement in its entirety with Israhell because I would be endorsing genocide, apartheid, and injustice if I accept peace between Lebanon and Israehell before the Palestinian - Israehelli conflict is convincingly resolved. By this, I am not calling for the destruction of Jews, or precisely Israehellis. I am calling for a one state solution, which is democratic, free and just, where both Arabic and Hebrew speakers and Muslims, Jews and Christians and other believers and non-believers can live together freely as equal citizens. Until that is achieved, Israehell should be boycotted, sanctioned and isolated. The way the world boycotted apartheid South Africa and made that apartheid regime to fall, and that led to the people to unite as equal subjects of one state in South Africa, the world owes humanity the moral obligation to see the same thing happen in Palestine. That can be done peacefully, and by leaders who want peace and justice to prevail from both the Israehelli and Palestinian sides. The Zionist apartheid regime must fall in order to defend the Jew and Hebrew speaker before defending the Palestinian Muslim or Christian who speaks Arabic. Such a racist apartheid regime is a danger and a threat to the Jewish people before it is a threat to the Palestinians and to it's neighbors and a threat and danger to world peace. Therefore, I do not want to see a peace agreement between Lebanon and Israehell until Israehell amends it's ways, and itself as a matter of moral principles and on humanitarian grounds.

    As for relations between the two parties, I am not a proponent of war and destruction, and I only support our country's right to self defense, as the Israehellis also say by pretending that they only reserve the right to self defense. I dont mind a renewed truce or cessation of hostilities. But there should be no formal peace agreement and no exchange of diplomatic ties and open borders until there is no more an apartheid regime in Palestine and the current racist regime is replaced with a one state where all it's people live together as equal citizens with equal rights and no discrimination along religious or cultural lines. Never in history, ancient or recent, until Israehell was born and is trying to do that, has the land of Palestine being the exclusive possession of only one people or group of people.

    Whatever the case might be in the near future, Lebanon has it's demands. We do not want Tawteen or the naturalisation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. This is a point of consensus among Lebanese. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese oppose Tawteen of the Palestinians in Lebanon. Additionally, we want all our lands, airspace and waters to be free from occupation violations and threats of occupation.
    Fair enough so in your poll when you talk about a peace agreement without the conditions of the agreement you would not know what people or FPM supporters or are against. It is a flawed question.

    Maybe it is just semantics and maybe the differences are really slight and should be discussed "w 3am na3mil mnel 7abbe ebbe".

    As for myself i support peace talks in good faith and both sides should make concessions and if the result is acceptable then i am for a peace agreement. Jumping to the agreement step is not really a good question.

    The better question is under what conditions would you support a peace agreement.

    Cheers
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Fair enough so in your poll when you talk about a peace agreement without the conditions of the agreement you would not know what people or FPM supporters or are against. It is a flawed question.

    Maybe it is just semantics and maybe the differences are really slight and should be discussed "w 3am na3mil mnel 7abbe ebbe".

    As for myself i support peace talks in good faith and both sides should make concessions and if the result is acceptable then i am for a peace agreement. Jumping to the agreement step is not really a good question.

    The better question is under what conditions would you support a peace agreement.

    Cheers
    You can still explain your vote.

    Of course, voting for peace agreement means you believe we can have it under good conditions. No one would want to support a peace agreement under bad conditions. The purpose of asking the question in this manner is because there are people who are completely opposed to a peace agreement with Israehell, whether based on religious convictions or based on humanitarian values and human principles of equality, justice and freedom or based on national interests.

    When you are saying yes, you support a peace agreement, it means automatically that you believe our conditions and national interests can be met. When you say no, it implies also that because our interests, values and aspirations will not be met by having a peace agreement, so therefore maintaining a state of hostility is better.

    Also it takes two to tango. By voting your support for a peace agreement, it means you agree that Israehell is willing to have peace with us and to make compromises. I do not presently believe Israehell wants peace with us except on it's humiliating conditions and based on it's own one sided interests, so I voted no or against.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    You can still explain your vote.

    Of course, voting for peace agreement means you believe we can have it under good conditions. No one would want to support a peace agreement under bad conditions. The purpose of asking the question in this manner is because there are people who are completely opposed to a peace agreement with Israehell, whether based on religious convictions or based on humanitarian values and human principles of equality, justice and freedom or based in national interests.

    When you are saying yes, you support a peace agreement, it means automatically that you believe our conditions and national interests can be met. When you say no, it implies also that because our interests, values and aspirations will not be met by having a peace agreement, so therefore maintaining a state of hostility is better.
    So you have voted No even if the conditions that you explained earlier are met? (single democratic state and so on)
    I assume you think they are not realistic. So are we supposed to live in an everlasting state of war?
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    @SeaAb

    Can you please explain to us your vote? Why you voted in favor as a Lebanese and an FPMer and why you think Israehell would be willing to meet our conditions and make compromises?
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    Yeah all of what you stated minus the resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This is not a Lebanese matter and therefore doesn’t fit as a condition for Lebanon to pursue. Yes we will support the Palestinians but not at our own expense. We have peaceful relations with plenty of brutal regimes, you will add Israel to the list after favorable condition for Lebanon are met. You want to boycott their products be my guest heck I might even join you.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    So you have voted No even if the conditions that you explained earlier are met? (single democratic state and so on)
    I assume you think they are not realistic. So are we supposed to live in an everlasting state of war?
    "If the conditions are met" is referring to future. I voted no based on present conditions and because I think Israehell doesnt want peace, is not willing or ready to compromise. Therefore our national interests wont be protected. Also, because based on humanitarian grounds, an apartheid regime should be boycotted, shamed, isolated and avoided and not normalize ties with it.
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I see no reason we can't have peace now. We all know that Shebaa Farms is just an excuse for Hizbullah to hold on to its weapons.
    They were able to expel Israelis from all Lebanese territories except for Shebaa Farms? Give me a break.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Yeah all of what you stated minus the resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This is not a Lebanese matter and therefore doesn’t fit as a condition for Lebanon to pursue. Yes we will support the Palestinians but not at our own expense. We have peaceful relations with plenty of brutal regimes, you will add Israel to the list after favorable condition for Lebanon are met. You want to boycott their products be my guest.
    In the case of other brutal regimes, we dont share border with them or haven't invaded us or we have relations with them under the principle of not interfering in the affairs of other countries. In the case of Israehell, we share a border with them, and they have occupied our territories and they have sent us hundreds of thousands of refugees who cant go back to their homeland.

    But if you think Israehell would be ready to meet our conditions, then you may feel free to vote in support.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    "If the conditions are met" is referring to future. I voted no based on present conditions and because I think Israehell doesnt want peace, is not willing or ready to compromise. Therefore our national interests wont be protected. Also, because based on humanitarian grounds, an apartheid regime should be boycotted, shamed, isolated and avoided and not normalize ties with it.
    i agree with @CitizenOfTheRepublic there are loads of regimes i dislike around the world starting with KSA and Iran moving to farther areas like Brazil, Philippines, North Korea (who btw kidnapped lebanese citizens to have western looking spies - look it up), China, Syria (who invaded us and we share borders with) .... the list goes on. As a small country we should be looking out for each others as we cannot solve all the problems in the world. The israeli right wing regime is a horrible one but as i do not accept the USA as the world police Iran or lebanon should not be aswell. We have enough on our plate and we are drowning. I will not assume anything about the isreali position before talks are open because that is the basis of negotiations in good faith.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    I see no reason we can't have peace now. We all know that Shebaa Farms is just an excuse for Hizbullah to hold on to its weapons.
    They were able to expel Israelis from all Lebanese territories except for Shebaa Farms? Give me a break.
    What about the naturalisation of palestinian refugees which goes hand in hand with "7a2 el 3awde"? this is the biggest point not Shebaa.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    i agree with @CitizenOfTheRepublic there are loads of regimes i dislike around the world starting with KSA and Iran moving to farther areas like Brazil, Philippines, North Korea (who btw kidnapped lebanese citizens to have western looking spies - look it up), China, Syria (who invaded us and we share borders with) .... the list goes on. As a small country we should be looking out for each others as we cannot solve all the problems in the world. The israeli right wing regime is a horrible one but as i do not accept the USA as the world police Iran or lebanon should not be aswell. We have enough on our plate and we are drowning. I will not assume anything about the isreali position before talks are open because that is the basis of negotiations in good faith.
    What do you regard as "good conditions" and do you think Israehell will really compromise or meet those conditions? Do you think they are willing to negotiate directly or indirectly at all? By the way, Syria under Assad had indirect negotiation with Israehell before the war on Syria and it didnt reach anywhere eventually. Why do you think it would be different in our case? Many might think peace is good and indeed it is a good thing; but when it comes to Israehell it isnt just a matter of signing peace. It is a matter of making concessions which we cant afford to make. None of us would agree to naturalisation of Palestinians or giving up part of our land or waters. So how could there be peace when the other side is only seeking to legalise it's theft of Lebanese rights?
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    In the case of other brutal regimes, we dont share border with them or haven't invaded us or we have relations with them under the principle of not interfering in the affairs of other countries. In the case of Israehell, we share a border with them, and they have occupied our territories and they have sent us hundreds of thousands of refugees who cant go back to their homeland.

    But if you think Israehell would be ready to meet our conditions, then you may feel free to vote in support.
    Think hard, is there another bordering country that occupied us, robbed us and sent us millions of refugees? 🤔 in any case this is neither here nor there. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are a Lebanese matter, that’s the only piece of the conflict thats fit to be part of our peace plan. The rest is not our business. If you want reparations for all they’ve done history shows Uncle Sam will foot the bill.

    You asked if we support a peace with Israel, we do under these conditions. I think they are pretty realistic and can be met.
     
    SeaAb

    SeaAb

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    @SeaAb

    Can you please explain to us your vote? Why you voted in favor as a Lebanese and an FPMer and why you think Israehell would be willing to meet our conditions and make compromises?
    First of all, i am not an FPM cardholder, I'm a supporter.
    No one can be sure if Israel, with its current right wing government, is willing to sign a just peace treaty with Lebanon. Lebanon, on the other hand, should have its conditions set and always willing to negotiate in good faith.

    1. Palestinian refugees to be relocated to Israel or any other country.
    2. Peace-keeping forces on both sides of the border for a set number of years.
    3. Agreement on land and water borders - with the immediate return of our occupied lands.
    4. Gradual handover of HA weapons to the state - heavy weapons and missiles after 5-10 years.
    5. Funding to arm our LAF with sophisticated weaponry.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Think hard, is there another bordering country that occupied us, robbed us and sent us millions of refugees? 🤔 in any case this is neither here nor there. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are a Lebanese matter, that’s the only piece of the conflict thats fit to be part of our peace plan. The rest is not our business. If you want reparations for all they’ve done history shows Uncle Sam will foot the bill.

    You asked if we support a peace with Israel, we do under these conditions. I think they are pretty realistic and can be met.
    Can you clarify further what conditions you think can be met and which might not and why you think we would get reparations? On what basis do you justify your line of thinking?
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    First of all, i am not an FPM cardholder, I'm a supporter.
    No one can be sure if Israel, with its current right wing government, is willing to sign a just peace treaty with Lebanon. Lebanon, on the other hand, should have its conditions set and always willing to negotiate in good faith.

    1. Palestinian refugees to be relocated to Israel or any other country.
    2. Peace-keeping forces on both sides of the border for a set number of years.
    3. Agreement on land and water borders - with the immediate return of our occupied lands.
    4. Gradual handover of HA weapons to the state - heavy weapons and missiles after 5-10 years.
    5. Funding to arm our LAF with sophisticated weaponry.
    And what concessions would you be ready to make other than point #4?
     
    Top